Re: Publication proposal discussion summary

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2007, at 15:57, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> [snip]
>> [[
>>     B) People expressed the desire for more group review before
>> publishing anything. The consequential benefits haven't been clearly
>> enumerated to my ken.
>> ]]
>>
>> Jim argued this most effectively - this is the normal W3C WG process, 
>> and there is nothing so strange about this WG that we should behave 
>> differently.
> 
> That's not a consequential benefit. It would be helpful if you were a 
> little more careful in your reading.

I don't think I could get away with arguing that conventionality is 
beneficial :)


> 
>> As an example to do with the semantics doc. HP has a view that the 
>> n-ary datatypes design (which I guess is in that doc) is broken. We 
>> have stated this on a number of occassions. Currently that does not 
>> seem to be in an issue list,
> 
> A simple query of the issue list reveals:
>     http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/detail?id=12
> 
> This is a very minimal piece of research. I.e., go to the owl wg home page:
>     http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Working_Group
> 
> Under "inputs" click "Issues" then "issues list" to get to:
>     http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/list
> 
> Then search for "n-ary".
> 
> It would also be helpful if you were a little less bold with 
> unresearched claims. Esp. ones that suggest that people have been 
> unresponsive to issues that you've raised.

Sorry - I had looked at the google code issues list, but clearly had 
difficulties with the mechanisms - I can't recollect what - it seems 
clear enough now - I think I was searching for "Turner" ...



Jeremy